U.S. Immigration Lawyer in Cincinnati, Ohio

I am an immigration lawyer with over 15 years experience in the field. Immigration law is one of the most complex and frustrating fields of law today. This blog is an attempt to shed some light on Immigration Law.

This policy memorandum provides guidance on the adjudication of the L-1B classification,
which permits multinational companies to transfer employees who possess “specialized
knowledge” from their foreign operations to their operations in the United States. It provides
consolidated and authoritative guidance on the L-1B program, superseding and rescinding certain
prior L-1B memoranda. USCIS is issuing this memorandum for public review and feedback.
Upon final publication, the memorandum will update chapter 32.6(e) of the Adjudicator’s Field
Manual (AFM).
Scope
This memorandum applies to and shall be used to guide determinations by all U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS) employees.
Authorities

The L-1 (“intracompany transferee”) nonimmigrant visa classification permits multinational
companies to transfer certain categories of employees from their foreign operations to their
operations in the United States. Specifically, the L-1A classification is available for intra-

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 2 of 15
company transfers of corporate managers and executives, while the L-1B visa classification
enables intracompany transfers of employees who possess “specialized knowledge.” This
memorandum sets forth USCIS policy regarding the L-1B classification for workers with
specialized knowledge.
Congress created the L-1B classification so that multinational companies could more effectively
transfer foreign employees with specialized knowledge to their U.S. operations, enhancing such
companies’ ability to leverage their workforces. Employees who work in any industry and serve
in any type of position may be classified as L-1B nonimmigrants, so long as the position
described in the L-1B petition requires specialized knowledge and the beneficiary is found to
possess such knowledge. Creation of the program reflected Congress’s concerns with meeting
the workforce needs of multinational employers operating in an increasingly global marketplace.
USCIS’s mission is to ensure that the objectives of the L-1B program are achieved and that the
program’s integrity is maintained.
This memorandum provides guidance to officers in adjudicating petitions filed by employers
seeking to transfer “specialized knowledge” personnel to the United States. The guidance
provides clarification regarding how L-1B petitioners may demonstrate that an employee
possesses specialized knowledge. In the case of off-site employment, it also provides greater
clarity regarding compliance with the requirements of the L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee)
Reform Act of 2004 (“L-1 Visa Reform Act”), Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. J, tit. IV, subtit. A, 118
Stat. 3351. The practical approach outlined in this guidance reflects the L-1B classification’s
broad statutory and regulatory definitions, while serving the purpose of the L-1B program and
recognizing the fluid dynamics of the business world in which petitioning organizations operate.
This memorandum provides consolidated and authoritative guidance on the L-1B program,
superseding and rescinding prior L-1B memoranda as described in Section III. It interprets
existing statutory and regulatory authorities to promote consistency and efficiency in L-1B
adjudications and the policy objectives described herein. Such adjudications require
individualized assessments based on a totality of the circumstances and determinations based
upon the law and a preponderance of the evidence presented.
II. Background
In 1970, Congress created the L-1 visa program after concluding that immigration laws at the
time unduly restricted the transfer and development of foreign personnel vital to the interests of
U.S. businesses.1 Congress designed the L-1 classification to enable employers to more
effectively transfer such personnel within their organizations, including personnel with
“specialized knowledge.” The legislative history indicates that Congress intended for the class
of eligible persons to be narrowly drawn, but Congress also anticipated that the L-1 petition
1 See generally Immigration Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-225; H.R. Rep. 91-851, as reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N.
2750, 2753-54 (noting the need to “help eliminate problems faced by American companies having offices abroad
transferring key personnel freely within the organization”).

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 3 of 15
process would be administered in an efficient way to facilitate qualifying personnel transfers for
U.S. businesses.
The 1970 Act, however, did not define “specialized knowledge.” Interpretation of the term thus
developed over time through a series of agency regulations and precedent decisions, which
generally imposed new and increasingly restrictive requirements. Such requirements included,
for example, that specialized knowledge must relate to “proprietary” information and that such
knowledge cannot otherwise be available in the U.S. labor market.
In 1990, Congress sought, among other things, to provide clarity to the term “specialized
knowledge” through the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-649. This Act
provides the current statutory definition of “specialized knowledge”:
[A]n alien is considered to be serving in a capacity involving specialized
knowledge with respect to a company if the alien has a special knowledge of the
company product and its application in international markets or has an advanced
level of knowledge of processes and procedures of the company.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 214(c)(2)(B). In drafting the 1990 Act, Congress
intended to broaden the use of the L-1 visa category in specific ways.2 Notably, the 1990 Act
did not include a proprietary knowledge requirement. H.R. Rep. 101-723(I), 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N.
at 6749.
Subsequently, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) revised its L-1
regulations to include a more liberal interpretation of specialized knowledge. 56 Fed. Reg.
31,553, 31,554 (1991). The definition of “specialized knowledge” in those regulations, which
continues to govern today, closely tracks the statutory definition:
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s
product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests
and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge or
expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures.
Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) 214.2(1)(l)(ii)(D). The prior regulatory definition
had required that the beneficiary possess an advanced level of expertise, as well as proprietary
knowledge not available in the U.S. labor market. The new (and current) definition eliminated
these requirements, permitting a finding of specialized knowledge in more varied circumstances.
This approach is consistent with the intent of Congress to enhance the ability of multinational
employers to use the specialized skills of their employees and to promote the United States as a
global business destination.
2 The 1990 Act expanded eligibility for L-1 classification in four ways: (1) by allowing certain accounting firms
access to the L-1 program; (2) by recognizing the L-1 blanket petition process; (3) by expanding the ‘one-year’
foreign employment requirement to include employment within three years prior to admission, and (4) by providing
a seven-year maximum period of L-1A admission for managers and executives. See H.R. Rep. 101-723(I)(1990),
reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6710, 6749.

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 4 of 15
Following promulgation of the above regulation, legacy INS and USCIS issued the following
memoranda to clarify the meaning of specialized knowledge:

Memorandum of Fujie Ohata, Director, Service Center Operations, USCIS,
“Interpretation of Specialized Knowledge for Chefs and Specialty Cooks Seeking
L-1B Status” (Sept. 9, 2004) (“2004 Ohata Memo”).
The Puleo Memo described “specialized knowledge” as knowledge that is different from that
which is generally found in the particular industry, but not necessarily knowledge that is
proprietary or unique. It also clarified that specialized knowledge based on knowledge of the
company’s processes or procedures must be “advanced, highly developed, or complex,” but need
not be proprietary, unique or narrowly held throughout the company. Similarly, the 2002 Ohata
Memo stressed that specialized or advanced knowledge “need not be proprietary or unique;” that
“specialized knowledge of the company product . . . must be noteworthy or uncommon;” and that
“knowledge of company processes or procedures . . . must be advanced” but “need not be
narrowly held throughout the company.” Finally, the 2004 Ohata Memo noted the need to
analyze whether “the petitioning entity would suffer economic inconvenience or disruption to its
U.S. or foreign-based operations if it had to hire someone other than the particular overseas
employee on whose behalf the petition was filed.” The 2004 Ohata Memo also reiterated that
advanced knowledge “need not be narrowly held throughout the company.”
In 2004, Congress enacted the L-1 Visa Reform Act, which established further requirements for
the adjudication of L-1B petitions.3 This legislation did not affect the meaning of “specialized
knowledge,” but instead addressed the placing of L-1B beneficiaries at third-party worksites as
“labor for hire.” Among other things, the Act requires that any prospective L-1B beneficiary
who will be primarily located at the worksite of another employer (referred to as “offsite
employment”) must be (1) controlled and supervised by the petitioning organization; and (2)
provided in connection with an exchange of products or services between the petitioning
organization and the unaffiliated company for which specialized knowledge specific to the
petitioning organization is required. See INA 214(c)(2)(F). Accordingly, where a prospective L-
1B beneficiary will be located primarily at a third-party worksite, USCIS must determine
whether that beneficiary is eligible for the classification under the conditions established in the
L-1 Visa Reform Act.
3 L-1 Visa Reform Act 412-417.

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 5 of 15
III. Scope of this Memorandum and Revision to the Adjudicator’s Field Manual (AFM).
To date, policy on the L-1B classification has been set forth in a series of policy memoranda
dating back to 1994. This memorandum is consistent with those policy memoranda but provides
consolidated and authoritative guidance on determining whether specialized knowledge has been
established in L-1B petitions and ensuring compliance with the L-1 Visa Reform Act. As such,
USCIS supersedes and rescinds the following memoranda:

Memorandum of William R. Yates, Associate Director for Operations, “Changes
to the L Nonimmigrant Classification Made by the L-1 Reform Act of 2004 (HQ
70/8)” (July 28, 2005).
In addition, USCIS will update chapter 32.6(e) of the AFM when it issues the final version of
this memorandum. At that time, the previous version of AFM chapter 32.6(e) will no longer be
applicable to the L-1B adjudicative process.
The guidance in this memorandum regarding the L-1 Visa Reform Act is consistent with that set
forth in AFM chapters 32.3(c) and 32.5(b) and should be read in conjunction with those AFM
chapters.
This guidance applies to all USCIS employees. When adjudicating L-1B petitions, USCIS
officers should apply the statutory and regulatory criteria for L-1B classification in a manner
consistent with this guidance.

IV. “Preponderance of the Evidence” Standard
A petitioner seeking L-1B classification for an employee must establish that it meets each
eligibility requirement of the classification by a preponderance of the evidence.4 In other words,
the petitioner must show that what it claims is more likely the case than not. This is a lower
standard of proof than that of “clear and convincing evidence” or the “beyond a reasonable
doubt” standard. The petitioner does not need to remove all doubt from the adjudication. Even
if an officer has some doubt about a claim, the petitioner will have satisfied the standard of proof
4 See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I. & N. Dec. 369, 375-376 (AAO 2010).

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 6 of 15
if it submits relevant, probative, and credible evidence, considered “individually and within the
context of the totality of the evidence,” that leads to the conclusion that the claim is “more likely
than not” or “probably” true.5
V. Elements of the L-1B Classification
In order to establish eligibility for approval, the L-1B petitioner must show: (1) that the
beneficiary possesses “specialized knowledge”; (2) that the position offered involves the
“specialized knowledge” held by the beneficiary; and (3) that the beneficiary has at least one
continuous year of employment abroad in a managerial, executive, or specialized knowledge
capacity with the petitioning organization or a qualifying foreign organization within the
preceding three years. If the beneficiary will be located primarily at the workplace of an
unaffiliated company, the petitioning organization also must establish that the beneficiary is
eligible for L-1B classification under the requirements of the L-1 Visa Reform Act, discussed
below in section VI.
A. Definition of “specialized knowledge”
A petitioning organization can demonstrate “specialized knowledge” by establishing either one
of two statutory criteria. Under the statute, a beneficiary is deemed to have specialized
knowledge if he or she has: (1) “special” knowledge of the company product and its application
in international markets; or (2) an “advanced” level of knowledge or expertise of the processes
and procedures of the company. INA 214(c)(2)(B). The corresponding regulation similarly
defines specialized knowledge in terms of “special” or “advanced” knowledge:
[S]pecial knowledge possessed by an individual of the petitioning organization’s
product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests
and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge
or expertise in the organization’s processes and procedures.
8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(D) (emphasis added).
Because the statute and regulations do not define the terms “special” or “advanced,” we look to
their common dictionary definitions, as well as the agency’s practice and experience in this
context. The term “special” is defined in leading dictionaries as “surpassing the usual,” “distinct
among others of a kind,” “distinguished by some unusual quality,” “uncommon,” or
“noteworthy.”6 The term “advanced” is defined in various dictionaries as “greatly developed
beyond an initial stage,” or “ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge,
5 Id. at 376.6 See Merriam-Webster Dictionary (“special”), available at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/special?show=0&t=1418153019 (last visited Mar. 13, 2015); Dictionary.com (“special”),
available at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/special?s=t (last visited Mar. 13, 2015); Oxford English
Dictionary (“special”), available at
http://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=special&_searchBtn=Search (last visited Mar. 13, 2015).

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 7 of 15
skill, etc.”7 Applying these definitions to the statutory and regulatory text, a beneficiary seeking
L-1B classification should possess:
• special knowledge, which is knowledge of the petitioning employer’s product,
service, research, equipment, techniques, management, or other interests and its
applications in international markets that is demonstrably distinct or uncommon in
comparison to that generally found in the particular industry or within the petitioning
employer; or
• advanced knowledge, which is knowledge or expertise in the organization’s specific
processes and procedures that is not commonly found in the relevant industry and is
greatly developed or further along in progress, complexity and understanding than
that generally found within the petitioning employer.
The following section explains how to determine whether a beneficiary possesses special or
advanced knowledge.
B. Application of the “specialized knowledge” definition
A beneficiary may possess either special or advanced knowledge, or both. Determining whether
a beneficiary has “special knowledge” requires review of the beneficiary’s knowledge of how the
company manufactures, produces, or develops its products, services, research, equipment,
techniques, management, or other interests (hereinafter “products or services”). Determinations
concerning “advanced knowledge,” on the other hand, require review of the beneficiary’s
knowledge of the specific employing company’s processes and procedures. While the
beneficiary may have general knowledge of processes and procedures common to the industry,
the focus here is primarily on the processes and procedures utilized specifically by the
beneficiary’s employer. With respect to either special or advanced knowledge, the petitioner
ordinarily must demonstrate that the beneficiary’s knowledge is not commonly held throughout
the particular industry or within the petitioning employer. As discussed in detail below,
however, such knowledge need not be proprietary in nature or narrowly held within the
employer’s organization.
Determining whether knowledge is “special” or “advanced” inherently requires a comparison of
the beneficiary’s knowledge against that of others. The petitioner bears the burden of
establishing such a favorable comparison. Because “special knowledge” concerns knowledge of
the petitioning organization’s products or services and its application in international markets,
the petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge that is
demonstrably distinct or uncommon in comparison to the knowledge of other similarly employed
workers in the particular industry or within the petitioning organization. Alternatively, because
“advanced knowledge” concerns knowledge of a company’s processes and procedures, the
petitioner may meet its burden through evidence that the beneficiary has knowledge or expertise
7

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 8 of 15
that is greatly developed or more complex in comparison to other workers in the petitioning
employer’s operations.
The following is a non-exhaustive list of factors that USCIS may consider when determining
whether a beneficiary’s knowledge is specialized:

The beneficiary is qualified to contribute to the U.S. operation’s knowledge of foreign
operating conditions as a result of knowledge not generally found in the industry or
the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations.

The beneficiary possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the employer’s
competitiveness in the marketplace.

The beneficiary has been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that
have significantly enhanced the employer’s productivity, competitiveness, image, or
financial position.

The beneficiary’s claimed specialized knowledge normally can be gained only
through prior experience with that employer.

The beneficiary possesses knowledge of a product or process that cannot be easily
transferred or taught to another individual without significant economic cost or
inconvenience (because, for example,8 such knowledge may require substantial
training, work experience, or education).

The beneficiary has knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or
complex, or of a highly technical nature, although not necessarily unique to the firm.
The presence of one or more of these (or similar) factors, when assessed in the totality of the
circumstances, may be sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a
beneficiary has specialized knowledge. As noted above, this list of factors is meant to be
illustrative, not exhaustive, and it does not impose particular requirements that a petitioner must
demonstrate. Suggested evidence that petitioners may provide consistent with these factors are
provided in Section V.C.

1. Specialized knowledge cannot be easily imparted to other individuals.
One of the several factors that may be considered in determining whether knowledge is
specialized is the amount and type of training, work experience, or education required to develop
that knowledge. See 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(iv) (requiring petitioner to submit evidence of the
8 One factor that may be relevant in weighing economic inconvenience is the time-sensitivity of the organization’s
need in its U.S. operations for an employee with the particular type of specialized knowledge, and the harm the
organization would suffer if it cannot fulfill its time-sensitive personnel need through transfer of the beneficiary. Cf.
Fogo De Chao (Holdings) Inc. v. DHS, 769 F.3d 1127, 1142 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (observing that a “natural prox[y] for
economic inconvenience” is “the amount of in-house training a company’s employees would have to receive to
acquire the knowledge in question”).

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 9 of 15
beneficiary’s “prior education, training, and employment”). Knowledge therefore will not
generally be considered specialized if it can be easily imparted from one person to another. On
the other hand, knowledge generally may be considered specialized if a petitioner can
demonstrate through credible and relevant evidence that the knowledge possessed by the
beneficiary would be difficult to impart to another individual without significant economic cost
or inconvenience to the petitioning organization.9 Although significant economic cost or
inconvenience may be a relevant factor, a petitioner is not required to establish significant
economic cost or inconvenience in order to establish that the beneficiary’s knowledge is
specialized.
2. Specialized knowledge need not be proprietary or unique to the petitioning
organization.
Although specialized knowledge cannot be knowledge that is generally possessed or easily
transferrable, it need not be proprietary or unique to the petitioning organization. A petitioner is
not required to demonstrate that it is the only company where the beneficiary could have
acquired the knowledge, or that it is the only company that trades in the technologies, techniques,
products, services, or processes that are the subject of the beneficiary’s knowledge. Although a
petitioner may provide evidence that knowledge is proprietary or unique in support of its claim
that the knowledge is also special or advanced, and thus specialized, the L-1B classification does
not require such a finding.
3. L-1B classification does not require test of the U.S. labor market.
As noted above, the petitioning organization must ordinarily demonstrate that the beneficiary’s
knowledge is not generally or commonly held in the relevant industry. Such a determination,
however, does not involve a test of the U.S. labor market. A petitioner is not required to
demonstrate the lack of readily available workers to perform the relevant duties in the United
States.10 The relevant inquiry is not whether workers with the beneficiary’s knowledge are
available to the employer; rather, it is whether there are so many such workers that the
knowledge is generally or commonly held in the relevant industry, and thus not specialized. If
there are numerous workers in the United States who possess knowledge that is generally similar
to the beneficiary’s, it is the petitioner’s burden to establish that the beneficiary’s knowledge
nevertheless is truly specialized.11
9 See Fogo De Chao, 769 F.3d at 1142.
10 In Fogo De Chao, the D.C. Circuit noted that the Immigration Act of 1990 precludes USCIS from requiring
evidence establishing that the specialized knowledge in question is not readily available in the United States labor
market. 769 F.3d at 1145. An inquiry into whether knowledge is generally or commonly held in a given industry—
and thus not “special,” as that term is naturally understood—is separate from an inquiry into whether there are U.S.
workers available to perform a given job.
11 Comparisons that account for similarly employed workers within the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations
are discussed in section V.B.4.

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 10 of 15
4. Specialized knowledge need not be narrowly held within the petitioning
organization.
Although comparisons with other employees of the petitioning organization may be useful in
determining whether the beneficiary’s knowledge is “special” or “advanced,” such knowledge
need not be narrowly held within the petitioning organization. Multiple employees within a
company may have obtained the experience, training, or education necessary to possess the same
type of specialized knowledge. Some companies may use technologies or techniques that are so
advanced or complex that nearly all employees working on the relevant products or services
possess specialized knowledge. The mere existence of other employees with similar knowledge
should not, in and of itself, be a ground for denial.
However, in cases where there are already many employees in the U.S. organization with the
same specialized knowledge as that of the beneficiary, officers generally should carefully
consider the organization’s need to transfer the beneficiary to the United States. The officer may
consider, for example, the need for another individual with similar specialized knowledge in the
organization’s U.S. operations and the difficulty in transferring or teaching the relevant
knowledge to an individual other than the beneficiary. The officer should also consider how the
duties to be performed by the beneficiary that require his or her specialized knowledge may or
may not differ from those already employed in the organization’s U.S. operations; the extent to
which the petitioning organization would suffer economic inconvenience or disruption to its U.S.
or foreign-based operations if it were unable to transfer the beneficiary; and whether the salary to
be paid to the beneficiary is comparable to similarly situated peers in such U.S. operations.
Where many employees within the organization’s U.S. operations share the beneficiary’s
knowledge, yet the beneficiary will be paid substantially less than those similarly situated
employees, this may indicate that the beneficiary lacks the requisite specialized knowledge. As
described infra, however, there may be valid business reasons for the wage discrepancy, but
justification for the variance generally should be evaluated in light of the skills, experience, and
other factors pertinent to the entire spectrum of employees in the U.S. operations who possess
the requisite specialized knowledge.
5. Specialized knowledge workers need not occupy managerial or similar
positions or command high salaries compared to their peers.
Unlike the L-1A nonimmigrant classification, the L-1B classification does not require that the
beneficiary be a manager or executive. Nor does the classification require that the beneficiary be
an officer or supervisor, or hold any other similar position within the petitioning organization.
Although rank and salary are factors that may be considered when analyzing whether a
beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge, there is no requirement that the beneficiary be of a
certain rank within the organization or that the beneficiary’s salary be “elevated” compared to his
or her peers within the organization or the particular industry. There may be valid business
reasons that one employee may be earning more or less than his or her peers. A company in its
early development, for example, may not yet have generated sufficient income to pay the
beneficiary a greater salary. In creating the L-1B classification, Congress focused on the
beneficiary’s “knowledge,” not his or her position on a company’s organizational chart or pay
scale.

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 11 of 15
6. Eligibility for another nonimmigrant classification is not a bar to eligibility
for L-1B classification.
The requirements for L-1B classification are distinct from other visa classifications. Eligibility
for one classification does not preclude eligibility for another. A beneficiary may possess
characteristics that make him or her potentially qualified for two or more distinct nonimmigrant
classifications. For example, the beneficiary may have characteristics that make him or her
eligible as an L-1B specialized knowledge worker and an H-1B “specialty occupation” worker.
Similarly, a beneficiary may qualify for L-1B nonimmigrant status while at the same time
possessing the extraordinary ability or achievement necessary for O-1 status. Possession of such
dual qualifications does not render the beneficiary ineligible for either classification. Officers
should only consider the requirements for the classification sought in the petition, without
considering eligibility requirements for other classifications.
C. Evaluating Claims of Specialized Knowledge
USCIS will be able to perform its adjudicatory function most effectively when the petitioner
explains with clarity the specific nature of the industry or field involved, the nature of the
petitioning organization’s products or services, the specialized knowledge required to perform
the beneficiary’s duties, and the need for the beneficiary’s specialized knowledge. To show that
the offered position in the United States involves specialized knowledge, the petitioner must
submit “a detailed description of the services to be performed.” 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(ii). The
petitioner must also submit evidence that the beneficiary’s “prior education, training, and
employment qualifies him/her to perform the intended services in the United States.” 8 CFR
214.2(l)(3)(iv). While the petitioner is required in all cases to compare the beneficiary’s
knowledge to that of others, the petitioner may also be able to demonstrate the nature of the
claimed specialized knowledge by, among other things, indicating how and when the beneficiary
gained such knowledge or explaining the difficulty of imparting such knowledge to others
without significant cost or disruption to its business.
Other evidence that a petitioner may submit to demonstrate that an individual’s knowledge is
special or advanced, includes, but is not limited to:

Documentation of training, work experience, or education establishing the number of
years the individual has been utilizing or developing the claimed specialized
knowledge as an employee of the organization or in the industry;

Evidence of the impact, if any, the transfer of the individual would have on the
organization’s U.S. operations;

Evidence that the alien is qualified to contribute to the U.S. operation’s knowledge of
foreign operating conditions as a result of knowledge not generally found in the
industry or the petitioning organization’s U.S. operations;

Contracts, statements of work, or other documentation that shows that the beneficiary
possesses knowledge that is particularly beneficial to the organization’s
competitiveness in the marketplace;

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 12 of 15

Evidence, such as correspondence or reports, establishing that the beneficiary has
been employed abroad in a capacity involving assignments that have significantly
enhanced the organization’s productivity, competitiveness, image, or financial
position;

Personnel or in-house training records that establish that the beneficiary’s claimed
specialized knowledge normally can be gained only through prior experience or
training with that employer;

Curricula and training manuals for internal training courses, financial documents, or
other evidence that may demonstrate that the beneficiary possesses knowledge of a
product or process that cannot be transferred or taught to another individual without
significant economic cost or inconvenience;

Evidence of patents, trademarks, licenses, or contracts awarded to the organization
based on the beneficiary’s work, or similar evidence that the beneficiary has
knowledge of a process or a product that either is sophisticated or complex, or of a
highly technical nature, although not necessarily proprietary or unique to the
petitioning organization; and

Payroll documents, federal or state wage statements, resumes, organizational charts,
or similar evidence documenting the positions held and the wages paid to the
beneficiary and parallel employees in the organization.
A petitioner may submit any other evidence it chooses. In all cases, USCIS will review the
entire record to determine whether the petitioner has established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the beneficiary has specialized knowledge under the totality of the circumstances,
in accordance with the standards set forth in the relevant statutes and regulations, as reflected in
this memorandum. Merely stating that a beneficiary’s knowledge is somehow different from
others or greatly developed does not, in and of itself, establish that he or she possesses
specialized knowledge. Ultimately, it is the weight and type of evidence that establishes whether
the beneficiary possesses specialized knowledge.

D. Demonstrating Qualifying Employment
To be eligible for L-1B classification, the beneficiary must have been employed abroad by the
petitioning organization (or an affiliate, subsidiary, parent, or branch of the petitioning
organization) on a full-time basis for one continuous year within the three years preceding the
filing of the petition. 8 CFR 214.2(l)(3)(iii). The required employment abroad must have been
in a managerial or executive capacity, or a capacity involving specialized knowledge. Id.
214.2(l)(3)(iv). However, the work to be performed in the United States need not be the same
type of work that the beneficiary performed abroad. Id. For instance, a person who was
employed abroad for one continuous year as a manager by a qualifying organization may,

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 13 of 15
depending on the circumstances, meet the qualifying employment requirement for L-1B
classification.12
VI. Offsite L-1B Employment (L-1 Visa Reform Act)
When an L-1B beneficiary will be primarily stationed at the worksite of an unaffiliated
employer, the L-1 Visa Reform Act requires the petitioning organization to show that the
beneficiary: (1) will not be “controlled and supervised principally” by the unaffiliated employer;
and (2) will be placed “in connection with the provision of a product or service for which
specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is necessary.” INA 214(c)(2)(F).
Absent this showing, the worker is not eligible for L-1B classification. Id. The L-1 Visa Reform
Act is designed to prevent, among other things, the outsourcing of L-1B beneficiaries to third-
party entities as “labor for hire.”13 Accordingly, if a determination has been made that a
beneficiary has specialized knowledge and that he or she will be stationed primarily at the
worksite of an unaffiliated employer, USCIS must also determine whether the position involves
“labor for hire.”
USCIS has interpreted the “control and supervision” prong of the L-1 Visa Reform Act to
require that, despite placement with another employer, the beneficiary will continue to be
controlled and supervised principally by the petitioning organization (or its affiliate, subsidiary,
parent, or branch).14 The petitioning organization therefore may not merely supply workers and
issue their paychecks in a “labor for hire” arrangement. Instead, the unaffiliated company must
have a business relationship with the petitioning organization that involves the provision of
products or services by the petitioning organization and not simply the supply of workers alone.
This ground of ineligibility applies to all petitions filed on or after June 6, 2005, including
petitions for initial, amended, or extended L-1B classification.
With respect to section 214(c)(2)(F)(i) (which requires that the worker not be “controlled and
supervised principally” by an unaffiliated employer), it is important to note that the L-1 Visa
Reform Act did not prohibit all offsite employment. An L-1B beneficiary may be legitimately
stationed at a third-party worksite, even if it is located far from the petitioning employer’s
office(s). Further, an unaffiliated employer is not necessarily prohibited from giving day-to-day
assignments to the beneficiary, provided that, in the totality of the circumstances, the unaffiliated
employer does not principally control and supervise the beneficiary’s activities. The petitioner
may establish that the unaffiliated entity lacks principal control and supervision by showing,
among other things, that the petitioner at all times retains the principal authority to: dictate the
manner in which the work is to be performed, reward or discipline the worker for his or her work
performance, and provide the worker’s salary and any normal employer-provided benefits, such
12 Further, an L-1B petitioner seeking to use the “blanket petition” process must show that the beneficiary is a
“specialized knowledge professional,” which is defined as an individual with specialized knowledge who is a
member of the professions as defined in INA 101(a)(32). 8 CFR 214.2(l)(1)(ii)(E) (emphasis added).
13 INA 214(c)(2)(F)(ii); see also 149 CONG. REC. 11,649, 11,686, 2003 WL 22143105 (2003) (statement of Sen.
Saxby Chambliss).
14 See 149 CONG. REC. at 11,686 (discussing supervision and control by petitioning organization).

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 14 of 15
as health insurance. In all cases, however, determinations with respect to control and supervision
will be based on all of the facts presented.
To satisfy section 214(c)(2)(F)(ii) (which requires that the placement not “essentially be an
arrangement to provide labor for hire,” but instead be “in connection with the provision of a
product or service for which specialized knowledge specific to the petitioning employer is
necessary”), the petitioner must show that the purpose of the offsite placement is for the
beneficiary to use specialized knowledge that is specific to the petitioning organization. To be
eligible for L-1B status, a beneficiary stationed primarily offsite must be applying specialized
knowledge of the petitioning organization’s own services or products. Where a petitioning
organization provides a customized product or service to a third party, the beneficiary’s
knowledge of the third party’s systems may be considered in addition to, but not as a substitute
for, the beneficiary’s knowledge of the petitioning organization’s product or service to determine
whether the beneficiary’s knowledge is “special” or “advanced,” based on the totality of the
circumstances. USCIS will determine, based on the evidence presented, whether the petitioner
has demonstrated that the placement is truly in connection with the provision of the petitioning
organization’s product or service, or whether it is essentially an impermissible arrangement of
labor for hire.
VII. Readjudication of L-1B Status
In matters relating to an extension of L-1B status involving the same parties (i.e., the same
petitioning organization and beneficiary employee) and the same underlying facts, USCIS
officers should give deference to the prior determination by USCIS approving L-1B
classification.15 In such cases, USCIS officers should reexamine a finding of L-1B eligibility
only where it is determined that: (1) there was a material error with regard to the previous
approval for L-1B classification; (2) there has been a substantial change in circumstances since
that approval; or (3) there is new material information that adversely impacts the petitioner’s or
beneficiary’s eligibility.16
VIII. Conclusion
Congress has determined that the ability to transfer company personnel with specialized
knowledge is important in fostering the growth and competitiveness of U.S. businesses.
Companies should be able to transfer their specialized knowledge employees to do business in an
increasingly global marketplace. The L-1B classification provides petitioning organizations
15 This policy of deference does not apply to a request for extension where the prior petition indicated that the
beneficiary would be coming to the United States to open or be employed in a “new office.” See 8 CFR
214.2(l)(3)(vi).
16 See Memorandum of William R. Yates, Associate Director for Operations, USCIS, “The Significance of a Prior
CIS Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility for
Extension of Petition Validity (HQOPRD 72/11.3),” 1-2, (Apr. 23, 2004) (a change in offsite employment, for
example, may constitute a substantial change in circumstances or new material information requiring re-adjudication
by USCIS to ensure compliance with the L-1 Visa Reform Act).

PM-602-0111: L-1B Adjudications Policy
Page 15 of 15
flexibility, consistent with this memorandum, as to how they may demonstrate that an employee
possesses specialized knowledge and, in the case of off-site employment, compliance with the
requirements of the L-1 Visa Reform Act. This practical approach is reflected in the L-1B
classification’s broad statutory and regulatory definitions, maintains the integrity of the L-1B
program, and recognizes the fluid dynamics of the business world in which petitioning
organizations operate.
Implementation
Revisions to AFM Chapter 32.6(e) will be included upon issuance of the final memorandum.
To provide sufficient time for training of USCIS employees, USCIS intends to make this
memorandum effective on August 31, 2015.
Use
This memorandum is intended solely for the training and guidance of USCIS personnel in
performing their duties relative to the adjudication of applications and petitions. It is not
intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or by any individual or other party in removal proceedings, in
litigation with the United States, or in any other form or manner.
Contact Information
Questions or suggestions regarding this PM should be addressed through appropriate channels to
the Office of Policy and Strategy.

Finalizing the H-4 employment eligibility was an important element of the immigration executive actions President Obama announced in November 2014. Extending eligibility for employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants is one of several initiatives underway to modernize, improve and clarify visa programs to grow the U.S. economy and create jobs.

“Allowing the spouses of these visa holders to legally work in the United States makes perfect sense,” Rodríguez said. “It helps U.S. businesses keep their highly skilled workers by increasing the chances these workers will choose to stay in this country during the transition from temporary workers to permanent residents. It also provides more economic stability and better quality of life for the affected families.”

Have been granted H-1B status under sections 106(a) and (b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 as amended by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The Act permits H-1B nonimmigrants seeking lawful permanent residence to work and remain in the United States beyond the six-year limit on their H-1B status.

DHS expects this change will reduce the economic burdens and personal stresses H-1B nonimmigrants and their families may experience during the transition from nonimmigrant to lawful permanent resident status, and facilitate their integration into American society. As such, the change should reduce certain disincentives that currently lead H-1B nonimmigrants to abandon efforts to remain in the United States while seeking lawful permanent residence, which will minimize disruptions to U.S. businesses employing them. The change should also support the U.S. economy because the contributions H-1B nonimmigrants make to entrepreneurship and science help promote economic growth and job creation. The rule also will bring U.S. immigration policies more in line with those laws of other countries that compete to attract similar highly skilled workers.

Under the rule, eligible H-4 dependent spouses must file Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, with supporting evidence and the required $380 fee in order to obtain employment authorization and receive a Form I-766, Employment Authorization Document (EAD). USCIS will begin accepting applications on May 26, 2015. Once USCIS approves the Form I-765 and the H-4 dependent spouse receives an EAD, he or she may begin working in the United States.

USCIS estimates the number of individuals eligible to apply for employment authorization under this rule could be as high as 179,600 in the first year and 55,000 annually in subsequent years. USCIS reminds those potentially eligible that this rule is not considered effective until May 26, 2015. Individuals should not submit an application to USCIS before the effective date, and should avoid anyone who offers to assist in submitting an application to USCIS before the effective date.

For more information on USCIS and its programs or about this rule and filing procedures, please visit uscis.gov or follow us on Facebook (/uscis), Twitter (@uscis), YouTube (/uscis) and the USCIS blog The Beacon.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

On Wednesday, April 1, 2015, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting H1B cap-subject case filings for fiscal year 2016 (FY16). April 1st may seem a long time from today, but employers and potential H1B candidates should be preparing now. The Fleischer Law Firm is already accepting H1B cap-subject cases for FY16. Contact us today with your candidates and questions.

What is an H-1b visa ?
The H1B visa classification permits a foreign national to work in the United States for a temporary period. It is available for offers of employment that are in a specialty occupation which is generally a job that requires a Bachelor’s degree of higher. A person may hold H1B status for a maximum of six years, and it may be issued in increments of up to three years by the USCIS. An employee may receive extensions of H1B status beyond six years in certain circumstances, if s/he is in the process of applying for employment-based permanent residence (commonly referred to as the "green card").
H1B visas are numerically limited, with a total of 85,000 visas available each fiscal year (20,000 of these visas are restricted to individuals who have received master's degrees or higher from U.S colleges or universities). This limitation is called the H1B cap.

What is the H-1b Cap ?
Each year, H1B cap-subject cases can be filed beginning on April 1,. Under USCIS regulations, the minimum filing period for H1B cap cases is five business days. If there are still cap numbers available at the end of the first five days, the cap remains open until filled. If there are enough cases to meet or exceed the cap in the first five days, the cap closes. In that event, the USCIS stops accepting new H1B cap filings, and a lottery is conducted from the cases filed during that first week to randomly select the cases that the USCIS will adjudicate. The remaining cases are then returned without being processed.

The Lottery
Last year, The USCIS received over 170,0000 H-1b filings . Thus, a lottery was needed to select from the cases filed during the minimum required filing period. Analysts believe the cap will be met the first week again this year. .

The Time to Prepare is NOW
The Fleischer Law Firm begins to accept cap-subject H1B cases months prior to April 1st each year. While these petitions cannot be filed with the USCIS until then, initiating the process early provides a number of potential advantages. First of all, the attorney working on the case will have time to fully identify and consider all documents needed from either the employer and/or foreign national candidate.

Planning for Employers
Employers should begin considering and vetting which of their employees may need H1B cap-subject filings. Most commonly, these are students on F-1 optional practical training (OPT). Other typical examples include L-2 employees working on employment authorization documents (EADs), who may wish to hold a status that is not dependent upon their spouses. Further, there is always a ripe crop of H-4 spouses who are looking to obtain an H-1b in order to work. Employers should anticipate their clients needs for FY16 and call our Firm now.

Planning for Foreign Nationals/ Employees
While many employers proactively identify their needs for H1B filings, foreign national workers still should approach their employers, generally through the Human Resources Department or managers. It is also important to update your resumes, make sure you have foreign degree evaluations, and have all your previous immigration paperwork like I-94s, I-20s and passports. This can be particularly important if one's employer is unfamiliar with H1B filings and may need to seek appropriate legal guidance in order to make an informed decision.

Tips and Requirements for Filing

1. Complete all sections of the Form I-129 petition, including the H Classification Supplement (pages 11 and 12 of the form) and the H-1B Data Collection and Filing Fee Exemption Supplement (pages 17-19). Make sure the Form I-129 has a revision date of November 23, 2010, or later. (You can find current versions of forms at www.uscis.gov/forms.)

2. Make sure each form has an original signature, preferably in black ink.

3. Include a signed check or money order with the correct fee amount.

4. Submit all required documentation and evidence with the petition at the time of filing to ensure timely processing.

5. You must submit a certified Department of Labor LCA (Form ETA 9035) at the time you file your petition. A copy of the LCA is acceptable.

6. You must submit evidence of the beneficiary’s education credentials at the time of filing. If all of the requirements for a degree have been met, but the degree has not yet been awarded, you may submit the following alternate evidence: *

A copy of the beneficiary’s final transcript; or * A letter from the registrar confirming that all of the degree requirements have been met. If the educational institution does not have a registrar, then such a letter must be signed by the person in charge of educational records where the degree will be awarded.

7. If the beneficiary will be applying for a nonimmigrant visa abroad, you must submit a copy of your H-1B petition and any subsequent response to a Request for Evidence or Notice of Intent to Deny with your filing. USCIS will not make a copy if you do not provide one.

8. You must file your petition with the correct service center depending on the H-1B beneficiary’s work location(s) as specified in the petition.

9. The following fees may be required with a petition subject to the cap: * Base filing fee: $325 * $750 for employers with 1 to 25 full-time equivalent employees, unless exempt * $1,500 for employers with 26 or more full-time equivalent employees, unless exempt * $500 to be submitted with a request for initial H-1B status or with a request for a beneficiary already in H-1B status to change employers. (This fee does not apply to Chile/Singapore H-1B1 petitions.) * $2,000 to be submitted by a petitioner that employs 50 or more employees in the United States, if more than half of those employees are in H-1B or L-1 nonimmigrant status. * $1,225 for employers seeking Premium Processing Service

Conclusion

Being well prepared for the H1B cap season, not to mention being represented by an experienced legal team, can mean the difference between an H1B approval, and having to try again next year. It should be noted that once this cap is closed, the next H1B cap will not open until April 1, 2016, with an H1B start date of October 1, 2016.

Monday, June 9, 2014

Mayorkas v. DeOsorio, No. 12-930 (cert. granted June 24, 2013)
The Supreme Court struck down this case ) case Mayorkas v. DeOsorio. The Court will consider whom Congress intended to benefit by INA § 203(h)(3), a provision which allows beneficiaries of certain visa petitions to retain earlier priority dates after “aging-out” (turning 21) and losing child status. The government sought Supreme Court review of an en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit holding that § 203(h)(3) applied to derivative beneficiaries of the Family 3d and 4th preference categories, as well as those in the Family 2A category. DeOsorio v. Mayorkas, 695 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2012). In so holding, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Board of Immigration Appeals’ interpretation of § 203(h)(3) as applying only to derivative beneficiaries of the Family 2A preference category. Matter of Wang, 25 I&N Dec. 28 (BIA 2009).
Here is the opinoin written by Justice Kagan
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-930_3d46.pdf

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Believing there is Fraud around every corner is biasing our immigration system. Here is how we can fight it.
---
“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it.
And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate.”[1]
-Sir Francis Bacon,
Father of the Scientific Method (1620)
---
Ask an immigration attorney about the most frustrating aspect of their practice today, and most will tell you that they spend an inordinate amount of time explaining basic reasoning and logic skills to US immigration officers set to deny approvable cases – cases where the only dispute is what the record logically reflects, not an actual insufficiency of the record itself.
Why is this? Are the adjudicating immigration officers at DHS and DOS deliberately harassing petitioners and applicants? Is there some anti-immigrant conspiracy or cabal? Unlikely, but what then explains this phenomena?
Social science has the answer and you should use it to your advantage when appealing an illogical denial or notice of intent to revoke.
Let’s take a closer look at the problem…
Whether it’s a family case suspected of a fraud in Ghana, or an H-1B petition for a growing IT startup, petitioners are being suspected of fraud at alarming rates.
Most denials are based upon a failure to provide “sufficient evidence” to establish eligibility for the benefit sought. However in many, if not all of these cases, the officer likely believes there to be an element of potential fraud that they are valiantly battling back against.
This is because every officer is trained to suspect fraud around every corner and success is measured not in cases approved or growth of the economy, but in levels of potential fraud detected and prevented.
Walk through a service center and what do you see? Take a look at embassy cubicles and what do you find? I will tell you what we find; we find “fraud” literally wallpapering the environment.
Service Centers and Embassies are covered with newspaper clippings, training materials, and bulletins detailing high levels of immigration fraud, warning staff to be hyper-vigilant for fraud.
The US Embassy is Accra, Ghana is an excellent case in point. The Inspector General (OIG) Latest Report[2] found: “The staff capably and courteously handles a heavy workload in a challenging, high-fraud environment.” The report then notes, “Fraud in immigrant and NIV applications is widespread. Consular officers are attentive to the potential for fraud and malfeasance. The recent investigation and subsequent dismissal of a long-time LE staff employee and some local guards has heightened this awareness.”
Yes, you read that correctly; even the staff at the US Embassy is suspected of committing fraud in Accra, Ghana.
According Governmental Accountability Office (GAO)[3] over 90% of family connections are requested to provide DNA evidence of their family connections. The Embassy even has a special webpage discussing “Romance Scams.” The page warns US citizens about “attempts at fraud by persons claiming to live in Ghana who profess friendship or romantic interest over the Internet.”[4]
Fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud… Did I mention fraud?
It’s around every corner, don’t you know?
And perhaps there is some fraud, but that’s not the point here.
The point is this, creating an environment that conditions immigration officers to suspect fraud around every corner significantly impacts the performance of these officers.
This is not my pet theory. This is social scientific fact. It’s called Confirmation Bias, and as Sir Francis Bacon noted above, its impact has been widely noted and accepted within social science since at least the 17th Century.
Confirmation Bias is summed up in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, published by the Oxford University Press. This article has been cited more than 450 times in peer reviewed scientific journals since its publication in 1999.[5]
“A person suffers from confirmatory bias if he tends to misinterpret ambiguous evidence as confirming his current hypotheses about the world…
“Teachers misread performance of pupils as supporting their initial impressions of those pupils; many people misread their observations of individual behavior as supporting their prior stereotypes about groups to which these individuals belong; scientists biasedly interpret data as supporting their hypotheses…
This study’s results found that when influenced by Confirmation Bias “the hypothesis that the agent believes in may be more likely to be wrong than right.” Furthermore, they showed that “the agent may come to believe with near certainty in a false hypotheses despite receiving an infinite amount of information.”
With this in mind, it’s amazing our immigration system works at all.
“A great deal of empirical evidence supports the idea that confirmation bias is extensive and strong and…supports the view that once one has taken a position on an issue, one’s primary purpose becomes that of defending or justifying that position.
This is to say that regardless of whether one’s treatment of evidence was evenhanded before the stand was taken, it can become highly biased afterward.” [6]
In other words, once your case exhibits any of the wide-ranging potential fraud factors, there is a very good chance that the officer reviewing your case just flipped a switch in their head and are now looking for any and all ways to deny your case whether they are conscious of it or not.
A sobering thought, no?
So what can you do when the officer deciding your case is conditioned to find fraud where it does not exist? Not much in the petition process itself unfortunately.
With fraud factors being as loose as they are, it is often unavoidable to submit a petition that will not raise some potential red flag – and we know where it goes from there.
What we can do however is fight every appeal as vigorously and thoroughly as possible and highlight to anyone that will listen that the “Culture of Fraud” within our immigration system is leading to erroneous denials, separating families, and hurting American businesses.
We can cite the social science and include them in our appeals to the BIA, the AAO, and in federal court. Often all it takes is getting your case in front of someone who is not as conditioned to the Culture of Fraud and you find that your case is back on track, but I say we need to do more and make sure every member of the BIA, AAO, and federal court realizes that this bias exists strongly within the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State. Give them not just the facts of your case, but the hard social science as well about why this case is in front of them at all and not approved in the first instance.
If we are lucky, our successful appeals may push a cultural change in the training and atmosphere within the walls of USCIS Service Centers, USCIS local offices, Embassies, and Consulates.
No one wants to be wrong or overturned on appeal, and there is no conspiracy to deny our approvable cases that raise fraud factors that are too liberally drawn up.
Beyond our steady, well argued appeals AILA must push this agenda. AILA must,
· push for a tightening of potential fraud factors;
· push for stronger tracking of how many cases are reversed on appeal AND holding immigration officers accountable for their reversed decisions;
· push for faster appeals processing times, which often drag on too long to be reasonably pursued by our clients.
---
As with many things these days, Wikipedia is a great place to get started. Its article on Confirmation Bias is will written and includes an extensive bibliography that you can cite in your future appeals of biased decisions.
[1] From The New Organon and Related Writings {1960; 1620}, quoted in Nisbett and Ross {1980, p. 167}.
[2] http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/126064.pdf
[3] http://www.gao.gov/assets/270/267129.html
[4] http://ghana.usembassy.gov/romance_scam.html
[5] First impressions matter: A model of confirmatory bias (Matthew Rabin, Joel L. Schrag), In Quarterly Journal of Economics, volume 114(1), 1999.
[6] Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. RS Nickerson -
Review of general psychology, 1998 - psycnet.apa.org. Cited 1,401 times to date
according to Google Scholar.
Reprinted with permission.
About The Author
Christopher M. Pogue, Esq.
Christopher M. Pogue, Esq. is Of Counsel with the Fleischer Law Firm, LLC. His law practice specializes in representing individuals, families, and businesses around the United States and around the world in US immigration matters. Contact: cpogue@immigrate2usa.com and Websites: www.PogueImmigrationLaw.com / www.immigrate2usa.com